4 ms·

that 'high standard' apparently allows them to present rumors from anonymous sources as facts as long as it fits a certain political agenda. The burden of evid

that 'high standard' apparently allows them to present rumors from anonymous sources as facts as long as it fits a certain political agenda. The burden of evidence no longer applies neither with NYT not any other heavily biased liberal outlets like WaPo or CNN.

mrguyorama 6y ago
You don't seem to understand what an "anonymous source" is
zmmmmm 6y ago
As far as I know, NYT will not report information from sources where they cannot establish some kind of authenticity. If you don't believe it, try reporting a completely anonymous tip to them and see how far you get. I will bet you they come back asking you provide some kind of further evidence to establish your identity or at least that your knowledge is authoritative.
- matthewrobertso 6y ago
  If the NYT was fabricating their anonymous tips, like parent suggested, why would they publish outside anonymous tips? The fact that they don't publish every anonymous source doesn't mean that all of their anonymous sources have to be real.
  - zmmmmm 6y ago
    I didn't read their comment as claiming they fabricate the sources altogether. However, if you really reduce it to that level you have essentially established an unverifiable theory that is no different to a conspiracy theory. On that basis, the allegation that NYT routinely fabricates sources should not be believed either (since its from an anonymous source with no way to verify it).
    - matthewrobertso 6y ago
      I agree, neither the allegation that the nyt fabricates its anonymous sources nor the allegations made through those anonymous sources should be believed (nor should they be believed to be absolutely false). Alternatively, anonymous sources are not evidence and cannot be the basis of stories that must be trusted, and since the times relies often on anonymous sources we can consider them to possibly publish rumors without evidence.
      - zmmmmm 6y ago
        You're equating fabrication with NYT incorporating anonymous sources into its reporting. Those are worlds apart. It is completely fine to use anonymous sources if you can authenticate their material. Some sort of myth seems to have been created that news reporting can't use anonymous sources. It's not only wrong, but not disclosing sources is an absolutely foundational accepted element of journalism.
        matthewrobertso 6y ago
        All I was arguing is that it is reasonable to be skeptical of articles posted in the new york times that are only confirmed by anonymous sources. As such a story is unverifiable/there is no chain of trust, believing the story involves trusting the newspaper.
        zmmmmm 6y ago
        It depends what level of skepticism you are applying there. In the sense of "do I have the full story", "is there another side to this I am not hearing", etc. I think its absolutely reasonable. But if you're skeptical about whether they completely made it up, published a rumour without any confirmation or are deliberately substantially altering it in how they portray it - that's an extremely serious allegation for a reputable news organisation. For example, I think that would stretch beyond "reasonable" in most cases for NYT based on my observation of their practices over time.
- bra-ket 6y ago
  a good example would be Trump' alleged 'suckers and losers' comment regarding fallen soldiers. This was a rumor started by The Atlantic article citing 'anonymous sources' which spread and re-broadcasted by all news networks and NYT, some of these third-hand versions of the rumor claimed additional verification by, guess what, another group of 'high-ranked anonymous sources', completely ignoring rejection of these allegations by everyone who actually attended that particular event with the President. This is the definition of slander which is somehow acceptable if you (and your reader base) hate a particular person or ideology.
- lenkite 6y ago
  Ok, many of these sources have later found to have little or no authenticity at all. Sources revealing second or third-hand information on the Trump administration. Mostly based on hearsay. Some imaginary. It has been journalism of the lowest possible standard. I trust NYT only on stuff completely unrelated to politics.

mrguyorama 6y ago

You don't seem to understand what an "anonymous source" is

zmmmmm 6y ago

As far as I know, NYT will not report information from sources where they cannot establish some kind of authenticity. If you don't believe it, try reporting a completely anonymous tip to them and see how far you get. I will bet you they come back asking you provide some kind of further evidence to establish your identity or at least that your knowledge is authoritative.

matthewrobertso 6y ago
If the NYT was fabricating their anonymous tips, like parent suggested, why would they publish outside anonymous tips? The fact that they don't publish every anonymous source doesn't mean that all of their anonymous sources have to be real.
- zmmmmm 6y ago
  I didn't read their comment as claiming they fabricate the sources altogether. However, if you really reduce it to that level you have essentially established an unverifiable theory that is no different to a conspiracy theory. On that basis, the allegation that NYT routinely fabricates sources should not be believed either (since its from an anonymous source with no way to verify it).
  - matthewrobertso 6y ago
    I agree, neither the allegation that the nyt fabricates its anonymous sources nor the allegations made through those anonymous sources should be believed (nor should they be believed to be absolutely false). Alternatively, anonymous sources are not evidence and cannot be the basis of stories that must be trusted, and since the times relies often on anonymous sources we can consider them to possibly publish rumors without evidence.
    - zmmmmm 6y ago
      You're equating fabrication with NYT incorporating anonymous sources into its reporting. Those are worlds apart. It is completely fine to use anonymous sources if you can authenticate their material. Some sort of myth seems to have been created that news reporting can't use anonymous sources. It's not only wrong, but not disclosing sources is an absolutely foundational accepted element of journalism.
      - matthewrobertso 6y ago
        All I was arguing is that it is reasonable to be skeptical of articles posted in the new york times that are only confirmed by anonymous sources. As such a story is unverifiable/there is no chain of trust, believing the story involves trusting the newspaper.
        zmmmmm 6y ago
        It depends what level of skepticism you are applying there. In the sense of "do I have the full story", "is there another side to this I am not hearing", etc. I think its absolutely reasonable. But if you're skeptical about whether they completely made it up, published a rumour without any confirmation or are deliberately substantially altering it in how they portray it - that's an extremely serious allegation for a reputable news organisation. For example, I think that would stretch beyond "reasonable" in most cases for NYT based on my observation of their practices over time.
bra-ket 6y ago
a good example would be Trump' alleged 'suckers and losers' comment regarding fallen soldiers. This was a rumor started by The Atlantic article citing 'anonymous sources' which spread and re-broadcasted by all news networks and NYT, some of these third-hand versions of the rumor claimed additional verification by, guess what, another group of 'high-ranked anonymous sources', completely ignoring rejection of these allegations by everyone who actually attended that particular event with the President. This is the definition of slander which is somehow acceptable if you (and your reader base) hate a particular person or ideology.
lenkite 6y ago
Ok, many of these sources have later found to have little or no authenticity at all. Sources revealing second or third-hand information on the Trump administration. Mostly based on hearsay. Some imaginary. It has been journalism of the lowest possible standard. I trust NYT only on stuff completely unrelated to politics.